scholarly journals Effectiveness of EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy versus EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration: A Retrospective Analysis

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 965
Author(s):  
Naosuke Kuraoka ◽  
Satoru Hashimoto ◽  
Shigeru Matsui ◽  
Shuji Terai
Keyword(s):  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Pancreatic Tumors ◽  
Accuracy Rate ◽  
Diagnostic Ability ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Site Evaluation ◽  
Subepithelial Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic tumors and subepithelial lesions (SEL) of the gastrointestinal tract are effective for histological diagnosis. There are also reports that tissue sampling is possible with a smaller number of punctures by EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). In this study, we retrospectively compared the diagnostic abilities of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. We examined 130 patients who underwent EUS-FNA/EUS-FNB for pancreatic tumors and SEL from July 2018 to January 2021. None of the cases underwent rapid on-site evaluation. There were 94 and 36 cases in the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups, respectively. The median tumor size in the EUS-FNB group was 30 mm, which was significantly larger than the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.02). In addition, transgastric puncture was significantly more common in the EUS-FNB group (p = 0.01). The EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups had a sensitivity of 82.9% and 91.7% and an accuracy rate of 85.1% and 91.7%, respectively. However, both procedures had a comparable diagnostic ability.

Comparison between fine-needle biopsy and fine-needle aspiration for EUS-guided sampling of subepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-22.e2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Facciorusso ◽  
Sumsum P. Sunny ◽  
Valentina Del Prete ◽  
Matteo Antonino ◽  
Nicola Muscatiello
Keyword(s):  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Subepithelial Lesions

Su1180 ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION VERSUS FINE NEEDLE BIOPSY IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF SUBEPITHELIAL LESIONS: A MULTICENTER RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS

2019 ◽  
Vol 89 (6) ◽  
pp. AB304
Author(s):  
Christopher C. Thompson ◽  
Diogo T. de Moura ◽  
Galileu F. Farias ◽  
Pichamol Jirapinyo ◽  
Erik A. Holzwanger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Subepithelial Lesions

scholarly journals Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration versus fine-needle biopsy and impact of rapid on-site evaluation for pancreatic masses

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (06) ◽  
pp. E738-E747 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diogo T.H. de Moura ◽  
Thomas R. McCarty ◽  
Pichamol Jirapinyo ◽  
Igor B. Ribeiro ◽  
Kelly E. Hathorn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Cell Block ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Pancreatic Masses ◽  
Site Evaluation ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is traditionally considered a first-line strategy for diagnosing pancreatic lesions; however, given less than ideal accuracy rates, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been recently developed to yield histological tissue. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic yield and safety between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in sampling of pancreatic masses. Patients and methods This was a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions. Baseline characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, were evaluated. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) diagnostic adequacy, cell-block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses comparing FNA versus FNB route of tissue acquisition and comparison between methods with or without ROSE were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. Results A total of 574 patients (n = 194 FNA, n = 380 FNB) were included. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB versus FNA were similar [(89.09 % versus 85.62 %; P = 0.229), (98.04 % versus 96.88 %; P = 0.387), and 90.29 % versus 87.50 %; P = 0.307)]. Number of passes for ROSE adequacy and cell-block accuracy were comparable for FNA versus FNB [(3.06 ± 1.62 versus 3.04 ± 1.88; P = 0.11) and (3.08 ± 1.63 versus 3.35 ± 2.02; P = 0.137)]. FNA + ROSE was superior to FNA alone regarding sensitivity and accuracy [91.96 % versus 70.83 %; P < 0.001) and (91.80 % versus 80.28 %; P = 0.020)]. Sensitivity of FNB + ROSE and FNB alone were superior to FNA alone [(92.17 % versus 70.83 %; P < 0.001) and (87.44 % versus 70.83 %; P < 0.001)]. There was no difference in sensitivity though improved accuracy between FNA + ROSE versus FNB alone [(91.96 % versus 87.44 %; P = 0.193) and (91.80 % versus 80.72 %; P = 0.006)]. FNB + ROSE was more accurate than FNA + ROSE (93.13 % versus 91.80 %; P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed ROSE was a significant predictor of accuracy [OR 2.60 (95 % CI, 1.41–4.79)]. One adverse event occurred after FNB resulting in patient death. Conclusion EUS-FNB allowed for more consistent cell-block evaluation as compared to EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA + ROSE was found to have a similar sensitivity to EUS-FNB alone suggesting a reduced need for ROSE as part of the standard algorithm of pancreatic sampling. While FNB alone produced similar diagnostic findings to EUS-FNA + ROSE, FNB + ROSE still was noted to increase diagnostic yield. This finding may favor a unique role for FNB + ROSE, suggesting it may be useful in cases when previous EUS-guided sampling may have been indeterminate.

scholarly journals Utility of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for diagnosing small subepithelial lesions (< 20 mm)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masanari Sekine ◽  
Takaya Miura ◽  
Junichi Fujiwara ◽  
Takeshi Uehara ◽  
Takeharu Asano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Fine Needle Aspiration ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Large Diameter ◽  
Fine Needle Biopsy ◽  
Needle Aspiration ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Subepithelial Lesions

Abstract Aim Subepithelial lesions (SELs) are defined as being located under the mucosa. Presently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is commonly performed to diagnose SELs. With the development of new puncture needles, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), which allows for the acquisition of large tissue samples, has been proposed. However, studies on EUS-FNB of SELs measuring < 20 mm have not yielded satisfactory results. Therefore, we aimed to assess the performance and usefulness of EUS-FNB of SELs measuring less than < 20 mm. Methods The present study included 62 patients who underwent EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB for SELs at our hospital between January 2015 and March 2019. EUS-FNA was performed using fine-needle aspiration needles, and EUS-FNB was performed using fine-needle biopsy needles. These needles, which come in different shapes and diameters, were compared in terms of their usefulness in performing procedures for SELs measuring ≥ 20 mm and those measuring < 20 mm. Results For SELs measuring ≥ 20 mm, the use of needles with a large diameter, such as 19 or 20 G, resulted in significantly improved diagnostic rates. For SELs measuring < 20 mm, the use of FNB needles showed significantly improved diagnostic rates, regardless of the size of the puncture needles. Conclusion Even when SELs are less than 20 mm, they might have malignant potential, and histological diagnosis may be desirable in some cases. EUS-FNB has an advantage over EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs measuring < 20 mm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document